That sounds like a made up fantasy number. That's $30,000 for every single person in the country or over $100,000 for every household - which just doesn't seem even close to reasonable. Even if accurate, that's a meaningless number. First, there's no reason to have every single person in the USA on fiber. Second, much of the fiber infrastructure is already in place and not currently being used.
As with everything else, Fiber will first be used for the Internet backbone (actually, this is already largely in place). Then it will start being used for high-density locations (companies, apartments, etc). Then individual households in large cities. It's going to be years before fiber makes it to every remote location (there are plenty of places that don't even have cable yet). It's silly to suggest that it's of no use until every person in the country has it.
That was an estimate I've seen. The low ball one is $1 Trillion, but it's thought to be too low. The problem is that this is a very big country, and requires a vast amount of fiber. So far, we're seeing it done in compact areas. Just wait until they need to do the middle of the country with more cable than people per mile.
I'm not saying it has to be done all at once. Verizon has already spent over ten billion for just a tiny part of the country, here and there, barely more than one percent. Very little fiber is in place, and what is will need to be upgraded a great deal to carry all of the extra bandwidth.
And to say that not everyone needs to be connected that way is elitist. Who decides which people don't need it, you?
Now, it's possible that they could have slightly modified the standards by changing the interpretation of how far the licensee needed to go to accept FRAND terms, but to completely throw it out is absurd.
A very big win for Apple is the ruling that affirms that FRAND means a lifetime license and the licensor can't simply terminate the license (as Motorola tried to do with Qualcomm).
And Samsung has also tried. They have the same lawyers, by the way, which is one reason they are using the same tactics.
Google is pushing its fibre business pretty heavy with it already rolling out in test markets in the US.
It is supposedly even faster than anything else out on the market now.
The question is.....with the developments we see now, will it be possible that Google rolls out their fibre in a wider area to more customers while at the same time NOT submit any patents on it as FRAND, keeping the whole thing proprietary?
In other words, is Google planning to become a service provider that plays by its own rules?
Maybe Apple should start looking into the service side as well cause you wouldn't want a situation like that to develop. Especially with things like Apple TV on the way. A cheap speedy connection from Google that is totally proprietary may end up gaining traction in the market and cause problems for competitors.
In all likelihood, this sort of move could be one of the reasons for Apple to pile up so much cash. But fiber, or for that matter anything wired, is not the solution to solve last mile. It is way too expensive to lay last mile wire.
The beauty is that you don't need last mile fiber. The speeds that we get in the US are already capable of handling any requirement - including 1080p streaming. The trouble is, our infrastructure is not capable of handling it, if everyone resorts to streaming 1080p!
It is only the backbones that needs to get upgraded. And most of the "upgrade" lies in lighting up fiber that is already laid in the ground. So it is relatively manageable for existing fiber networks to upgrade. Someone laying new fiber, negotiating right of way, etc, will only be buying a bag of hurt.
And then there is the small problem of technology. Did you know, if the US completely stopped terrestrial video transmission (over the air) and moved completely to an Internet delivery model, it would free up so much high quality spectrum - which actually makes wireless Internet possible at much larger scales?
Wireless is the ultimate solution for last mile. And wireless over unlicensed spectrum is also possible. Actually, it is a pity that Sprint Clearwire failed commercially - because as a technology WiMAX is much more capable of scaling up to the levels of providing universal service. It supports Point to Point as well as Point to Multiple modes. So it can be used for remote area backbone as well. It is much cheaper as there is no license to be paid to anyone - unlike LTE which is crazy expensive. But I guess these are the very reasons WiMAX failed - it threatened too many big players! And no one really benefitted big from WiMAX to support it - except the hapless consumer - and you know how those battles go, every time!
Google - a service provider? Unlikely, not with fibre at least.
... the whole 'final mile' thing is excruciatingly expensive.
Wi-Max. 'Nuff said. No need to do the "final mile" linking to individual homes. Just local networks. Just look beyond our current technology, and it'll get there. Give it a few years.
Well, the estimate to serve all the people in the USA with fiber is about $10 trillion. As far as I know, Google doesn't have that.
and do you have a source for that figure?... if i recall corretly the audtralia fiber roll-out is expected to cost 36 BILLION. granted they are all close togeher... now lets multiply that number by 50 (representing 50 states) we get 1.8 trillion. the us deficit . now lets double that to include 4G wireless tech to cover those areas that can't be reached by fiber.
so by my estimates, you are 3 times over-stating the amount. ( yes alot of assumptions, but less than yours...)
That was an estimate I've seen. The low ball one is $1 Trillion, but it's thought to be too low. The problem is that this is a very big country, and requires a vast amount of fiber. So far, we're seeing it done in compact areas. Just wait until they need to do the middle of the country with more cable than people per mile.
I'm not saying it has to be done all at once. Verizon has already spent over ten billion for just a tiny part of the country, here and there, barely more than one percent. Very little fiber is in place, and what is will need to be upgraded a great deal to carry all of the extra bandwidth.
And to say that not everyone needs to be connected that way is elitist. Who decides which people don't need it, you?
funny...the US debt is about 15 TRILLION dollars... and there is one BILLION seconds in 32 years... so thats 15000 dollars a second for 32 years... or to use the occupy movement's mantra make the rich 1 percenters pay! so that would work out to 1.5 million workers (approx 150 million workers in the usa) paying 312,500 dollars each year for 32 years!
so according to the wiki, 3.1 million of the usa are millionares in worth... and 36300 people are worth more than 30 million... so i am either proving that fiber rollout is to expensive or that usa has an impossible debt, and the rich can't pay it off, thus tax will increase... i say forget the debt and give me fiber!... that way i can forget that fact that i will be paying, paying, and more paying taxes... and at least i have the worlds best internet (oh, wait am i dreaming... sorry sir, not about the tax part!)
funny...the US debt is about 15 TRILLION dollars... and there is one BILLION seconds in 32 years... so thats 15000 dollars a second for 32 years... or to use the occupy movement's mantra make the rich 1 percenters pay! so that would work out to 1.5 million workers (approx 150 million workers in the usa) paying 312,500 dollars each year for 32 years!
so according to the wiki, 3.1 million of the usa are millionares in worth... and 36300 people are worth more than 30 million... so i am either proving that fiber rollout is to expensive or that usa has an impossible debt, and the rich can't pay it off, thus tax will increase... i say forget the debt and give me fiber!... that way i can forget that fact that i will be paying, paying, and more paying taxes... and at least i have the worlds best internet (oh, wait am i dreaming... sorry sir, not about the tax part!)
SO! Samsung, then! How, uh? how about that Samsung?
That was an estimate I've seen. The low ball one is $1 Trillion, but it's thought to be too low. The problem is that this is a very big country, and requires a vast amount of fiber. So far, we're seeing it done in compact areas. Just wait until they need to do the middle of the country with more cable than people per mile.
I'm not saying it has to be done all at once. Verizon has already spent over ten billion for just a tiny part of the country, here and there, barely more than one percent. Very little fiber is in place, and what is will need to be upgraded a great deal to carry all of the extra bandwidth.
And to say that not everyone needs to be connected that way is elitist. Who decides which people don't need it, you?
Simple. People who live where they can afford it have the option to use it or not.
If you live in the wilds of Alaska, you also have the right to ask for it, but you may not like the billion dollar connection fee.
It's a free market economy (largely). Provider offers a price to connect you and you choose to buy it or not. No one has to decide for anyone else. In practice, though, the people who live in high density areas will get it before those who live in remote areas. How else would you expect it to work?
and do you have a source for that figure?... if i recall corretly the audtralia fiber roll-out is expected to cost 36 BILLION. granted they are all close togeher... now lets multiply that number by 50 (representing 50 states) we get 1.8 trillion. the us deficit . now lets double that to include 4G wireless tech to cover those areas that can't be reached by fiber.
so by my estimates, you are 3 times over-stating the amount. ( yes alot of assumptions, but less than yours...)
Australia doesn't have to cross their country with fiber. Most of the population lives close to the sea. Most of the interior is unpopulated. Not so with the US, where there are towns, villages and small hamlets everywhere you go.
This makes Australia a much easier, and cheaper country to outfit.
Australia also has a bit over 20 million people, while the US has at least 320 million.
funny...the US debt is about 15 TRILLION dollars... and there is one BILLION seconds in 32 years... so thats 15000 dollars a second for 32 years... or to use the occupy movement's mantra make the rich 1 percenters pay! so that would work out to 1.5 million workers (approx 150 million workers in the usa) paying 312,500 dollars each year for 32 years!
so according to the wiki, 3.1 million of the usa are millionares in worth... and 36300 people are worth more than 30 million... so i am either proving that fiber rollout is to expensive or that usa has an impossible debt, and the rich can't pay it off, thus tax will increase... i say forget the debt and give me fiber!... that way i can forget that fact that i will be paying, paying, and more paying taxes... and at least i have the worlds best internet (oh, wait am i dreaming... sorry sir, not about the tax part!)
Simple. People who live where they can afford it have the option to use it or not.
If you live in the wilds of Alaska, you also have the right to ask for it, but you may not like the billion dollar connection fee.
It's a free market economy (largely). Provider offers a price to connect you and you choose to buy it or not. No one has to decide for anyone else. In practice, though, the people who live in high density areas will get it before those who live in remote areas. How else would you expect it to work?
The talk is about getting everyone connected. The way people are connected by telephone. So a very few, in remote places won't get it, but that's a small fraction of one percent, which doesn't affect the figures.
Comments
That sounds like a made up fantasy number. That's $30,000 for every single person in the country or over $100,000 for every household - which just doesn't seem even close to reasonable. Even if accurate, that's a meaningless number. First, there's no reason to have every single person in the USA on fiber. Second, much of the fiber infrastructure is already in place and not currently being used.
As with everything else, Fiber will first be used for the Internet backbone (actually, this is already largely in place). Then it will start being used for high-density locations (companies, apartments, etc). Then individual households in large cities. It's going to be years before fiber makes it to every remote location (there are plenty of places that don't even have cable yet). It's silly to suggest that it's of no use until every person in the country has it.
That was an estimate I've seen. The low ball one is $1 Trillion, but it's thought to be too low. The problem is that this is a very big country, and requires a vast amount of fiber. So far, we're seeing it done in compact areas. Just wait until they need to do the middle of the country with more cable than people per mile.
I'm not saying it has to be done all at once. Verizon has already spent over ten billion for just a tiny part of the country, here and there, barely more than one percent. Very little fiber is in place, and what is will need to be upgraded a great deal to carry all of the extra bandwidth.
And to say that not everyone needs to be connected that way is elitist. Who decides which people don't need it, you?
Yep. This one had to go that way.
Now, it's possible that they could have slightly modified the standards by changing the interpretation of how far the licensee needed to go to accept FRAND terms, but to completely throw it out is absurd.
A very big win for Apple is the ruling that affirms that FRAND means a lifetime license and the licensor can't simply terminate the license (as Motorola tried to do with Qualcomm).
And Samsung has also tried. They have the same lawyers, by the way, which is one reason they are using the same tactics.
They could, but they won't. It's too great a percentage of their total.
Not really.
Just realised something
Google is pushing its fibre business pretty heavy with it already rolling out in test markets in the US.
It is supposedly even faster than anything else out on the market now.
The question is.....with the developments we see now, will it be possible that Google rolls out their fibre in a wider area to more customers while at the same time NOT submit any patents on it as FRAND, keeping the whole thing proprietary?
In other words, is Google planning to become a service provider that plays by its own rules?
Maybe Apple should start looking into the service side as well cause you wouldn't want a situation like that to develop. Especially with things like Apple TV on the way. A cheap speedy connection from Google that is totally proprietary may end up gaining traction in the market and cause problems for competitors.
In all likelihood, this sort of move could be one of the reasons for Apple to pile up so much cash. But fiber, or for that matter anything wired, is not the solution to solve last mile. It is way too expensive to lay last mile wire.
The beauty is that you don't need last mile fiber. The speeds that we get in the US are already capable of handling any requirement - including 1080p streaming. The trouble is, our infrastructure is not capable of handling it, if everyone resorts to streaming 1080p!
It is only the backbones that needs to get upgraded. And most of the "upgrade" lies in lighting up fiber that is already laid in the ground. So it is relatively manageable for existing fiber networks to upgrade. Someone laying new fiber, negotiating right of way, etc, will only be buying a bag of hurt.
And then there is the small problem of technology. Did you know, if the US completely stopped terrestrial video transmission (over the air) and moved completely to an Internet delivery model, it would free up so much high quality spectrum - which actually makes wireless Internet possible at much larger scales?
Wireless is the ultimate solution for last mile. And wireless over unlicensed spectrum is also possible. Actually, it is a pity that Sprint Clearwire failed commercially - because as a technology WiMAX is much more capable of scaling up to the levels of providing universal service. It supports Point to Point as well as Point to Multiple modes. So it can be used for remote area backbone as well. It is much cheaper as there is no license to be paid to anyone - unlike LTE which is crazy expensive. But I guess these are the very reasons WiMAX failed - it threatened too many big players! And no one really benefitted big from WiMAX to support it - except the hapless consumer - and you know how those battles go, every time!
Well, the estimate to serve all the people in the USA with fiber is about $10 trillion. As far as I know, Google doesn't have that.
Google emptied about half their piggy bank on MotoMo.
Google - a service provider? Unlikely, not with fibre at least.
... the whole 'final mile' thing is excruciatingly expensive.
Wi-Max. 'Nuff said. No need to do the "final mile" linking to individual homes. Just local networks. Just look beyond our current technology, and it'll get there. Give it a few years.
So the point is valid.
Well, the estimate to serve all the people in the USA with fiber is about $10 trillion. As far as I know, Google doesn't have that.
and do you have a source for that figure?... if i recall corretly the audtralia fiber roll-out is expected to cost 36 BILLION. granted they are all close togeher... now lets multiply that number by 50 (representing 50 states) we get 1.8 trillion. the us deficit
so by my estimates, you are 3 times over-stating the amount. ( yes alot of assumptions, but less than yours...)
That was an estimate I've seen. The low ball one is $1 Trillion, but it's thought to be too low. The problem is that this is a very big country, and requires a vast amount of fiber. So far, we're seeing it done in compact areas. Just wait until they need to do the middle of the country with more cable than people per mile.
I'm not saying it has to be done all at once. Verizon has already spent over ten billion for just a tiny part of the country, here and there, barely more than one percent. Very little fiber is in place, and what is will need to be upgraded a great deal to carry all of the extra bandwidth.
And to say that not everyone needs to be connected that way is elitist. Who decides which people don't need it, you?
funny...the US debt is about 15 TRILLION dollars... and there is one BILLION seconds in 32 years... so thats 15000 dollars a second for 32 years... or to use the occupy movement's mantra make the rich 1 percenters pay! so that would work out to 1.5 million workers (approx 150 million workers in the usa) paying 312,500 dollars each year for 32 years!
so according to the wiki, 3.1 million of the usa are millionares in worth... and 36300 people are worth more than 30 million... so i am either proving that fiber rollout is to expensive or that usa has an impossible debt, and the rich can't pay it off, thus tax will increase... i say forget the debt and give me fiber!... that way i can forget that fact that i will be paying, paying, and more paying taxes... and at least i have the worlds best internet (oh, wait am i dreaming... sorry sir, not about the tax part!)
funny...the US debt is about 15 TRILLION dollars... and there is one BILLION seconds in 32 years... so thats 15000 dollars a second for 32 years... or to use the occupy movement's mantra make the rich 1 percenters pay! so that would work out to 1.5 million workers (approx 150 million workers in the usa) paying 312,500 dollars each year for 32 years!
so according to the wiki, 3.1 million of the usa are millionares in worth... and 36300 people are worth more than 30 million... so i am either proving that fiber rollout is to expensive or that usa has an impossible debt, and the rich can't pay it off, thus tax will increase... i say forget the debt and give me fiber!... that way i can forget that fact that i will be paying, paying, and more paying taxes... and at least i have the worlds best internet (oh, wait am i dreaming... sorry sir, not about the tax part!)
SO! Samsung, then! How, uh? how about that Samsung?
That was an estimate I've seen. The low ball one is $1 Trillion, but it's thought to be too low. The problem is that this is a very big country, and requires a vast amount of fiber. So far, we're seeing it done in compact areas. Just wait until they need to do the middle of the country with more cable than people per mile.
I'm not saying it has to be done all at once. Verizon has already spent over ten billion for just a tiny part of the country, here and there, barely more than one percent. Very little fiber is in place, and what is will need to be upgraded a great deal to carry all of the extra bandwidth.
And to say that not everyone needs to be connected that way is elitist. Who decides which people don't need it, you?
Simple. People who live where they can afford it have the option to use it or not.
If you live in the wilds of Alaska, you also have the right to ask for it, but you may not like the billion dollar connection fee.
It's a free market economy (largely). Provider offers a price to connect you and you choose to buy it or not. No one has to decide for anyone else. In practice, though, the people who live in high density areas will get it before those who live in remote areas. How else would you expect it to work?
Not really.
Almost $10 billion of their 2011 sales is a big percentage of their total sales.
and do you have a source for that figure?... if i recall corretly the audtralia fiber roll-out is expected to cost 36 BILLION. granted they are all close togeher... now lets multiply that number by 50 (representing 50 states) we get 1.8 trillion. the us deficit
so by my estimates, you are 3 times over-stating the amount. ( yes alot of assumptions, but less than yours...)
Australia doesn't have to cross their country with fiber. Most of the population lives close to the sea. Most of the interior is unpopulated. Not so with the US, where there are towns, villages and small hamlets everywhere you go.
This makes Australia a much easier, and cheaper country to outfit.
Australia also has a bit over 20 million people, while the US has at least 320 million.
funny...the US debt is about 15 TRILLION dollars... and there is one BILLION seconds in 32 years... so thats 15000 dollars a second for 32 years... or to use the occupy movement's mantra make the rich 1 percenters pay! so that would work out to 1.5 million workers (approx 150 million workers in the usa) paying 312,500 dollars each year for 32 years!
so according to the wiki, 3.1 million of the usa are millionares in worth... and 36300 people are worth more than 30 million... so i am either proving that fiber rollout is to expensive or that usa has an impossible debt, and the rich can't pay it off, thus tax will increase... i say forget the debt and give me fiber!... that way i can forget that fact that i will be paying, paying, and more paying taxes... and at least i have the worlds best internet (oh, wait am i dreaming... sorry sir, not about the tax part!)
Nothing you said is relevant.
Simple. People who live where they can afford it have the option to use it or not.
If you live in the wilds of Alaska, you also have the right to ask for it, but you may not like the billion dollar connection fee.
It's a free market economy (largely). Provider offers a price to connect you and you choose to buy it or not. No one has to decide for anyone else. In practice, though, the people who live in high density areas will get it before those who live in remote areas. How else would you expect it to work?
The talk is about getting everyone connected. The way people are connected by telephone. So a very few, in remote places won't get it, but that's a small fraction of one percent, which doesn't affect the figures.